(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]That "test" is extremely poor. It's flawed on so many levels it isn't even funny. For example, the company doing the test is paid by Microsoft! And they even claimed that Opera automatically updated itself during testing, and that was before Opera even supported automatic updates
Alright, hows this for accurate information?:
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/201...lockin.php
Based on the info you gave me i'm reading that was in effect for IE8, IE9 is a completely different version.
PCMags is a highly reputable website for computer information. You can't confirm that EVERY website isn't paid by Microsoft for how much money they have. Why do you not go ahead and do some tests yourself to relay back to this thread then?
(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to look at security, look at something like secunia.com, which shows that Opera has fewer security holes than any browser, and also patches security holes much faster.
Opera's lack of support for DEP and ASLR makes it one of the weakest web browsers just for that one reason. This automatically makes it much easier to find secure data saved and stored by the web browser during a session.
(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]TL;DR - That test is not trustworthy. The methodology sucks, and NSS Labs took money from Microsoft to make them look good.
There were original tests done by them uninfluenced by IE in any way. That was back with IE8 btw, not after IE9 came out. I wouldn't be referencing IE security to an older version of the program.
(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to be confusing this "malware" test with general security flaws.
Malware is a part of general security so how can you define them as being separate?
(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]The flawed test you linked to claims to show how well a browser blocks socially engineered malware. That means that it isn't the browser, but the user. The user needs to click that file to download it, and then choose to run it on his computer. The test claims to show how each browser prevents the user from running that file on his computer, so to speak.
Socially engineered or not, it's still a demonstration on how the web browser attempts to block it lol. The ones that don't do a good job of keeping you secure are still less secure. Google blocks known malware pages for instance.
(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]Chrome's tab isolation is something different.
Isolation of processes is not different than "better" security to a malware threat... If you have malware on one page that was designed to look at the pages you're currently viewing, and you had paypal open on one tab. How would that not be improved security if it was treated like an entirely separate process. You should use logic before just assuming that something has no effect on improving security.
(07-31-2011, 02:56 AM)topy Wrote: [ -> ]No, not really. But NSS Labs and Microsoft seem to want to fool people into thinking that it is. The fact that IE is a much more tempting target for hackers alone makes it "less secure."
You're wrong here, just because something is more desireable doesn't always mean that it's achieved. Sometimes it takes longer, and in this case to find vunerabilities in their application.
Am I wrong then? Along with all of these other tests?
http://internet-browser-review.toptenreviews.com/
http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-cent...-opera-620
And who's to say which ones are truly reliable or not? With me, i'm saying that Firefox is the most secure of all of them, and Google chrome has improved since it first came out.
Note: Fewer security holes doesn't mean anything with how much of a risk a certain security hole is deemed to be. You can have 10 vulnerabilities, but say another program only has 1, and it's a really big security hole. Whereas the 10 in the other, are small. How do you measure which one is more secure then?
